Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided Miss X’s priority on the housing register. The Council properly considered her circumstances when she first applied to the housing register and requested a health and housing award. It also reviewed her banding when she asked it to, all while following its allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council did not give proper consideration to her and her family’s needs when it decided which banding she was awarded on the housing register.
2. Miss X says this caused her anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read and considered the documents Miss X provided about the complaint.
6. I considered the documents the Council provided along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Allocations

8. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
9. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
10. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the priority band they have been awarded.

The Council’s scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme where applicants can express their interest in properties advertised by the local housing associations.
12. The Council maintains a housing register and applications are assessed and prioritised using the scheme. Applicants are given a priority band, and this, coupled with the date the band decision is made, informs how applicants are prioritised for housing.
13. The Council’s scheme gives reasonable preference to those applicants who have a medical condition or who need to move for health or welfare related reasons.
14. The policy says the Council can give this additional preference by backdating the priority date by six months within the applicant’s band.
15. The scheme permits the award of band one to applicants for whom the Council has made an extreme health and housing award (HHA).
16. The scheme allows for the Council to award band two to applicants owed the main housing duty.
17. Where an applicant has at least two of the following criteria, the Council can award band three;
• the Council accept the applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the applicant is lacking bedroom space.
18. The policy says that applicants have a right to review banding decisions within 21 days of the decision. The policy says the Council has eight weeks to respond to a review request.
19. The Council assesses HHAs against criteria relating to an applicant’s medical condition. The policy says this will only be relevant where an applicant’s current accommodation is affecting that condition and alternative accommodation would improve that condition.
20. The policy identifies the different HHAs that are available, and this includes an extreme award. This award is given when the Council considers an applicant and/or a member of their family has a serious physical or mental health problem and there is an urgent need to move.
21. The policy says for the Council to consider HHAs, applicants must submit an online health and housing application as part of their initial application.

What happened

22. Miss X has two children who require additional support: C, who has a physical disability, and D, who has a mental health condition.
23. In January 2022, Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register. At the same time, she told it she was threatened with homelessness.
24. In February, the Council, assessed the housing register application and wrote to Miss X. The letter says the Council awarded Miss X with band three, because she had multiple needs.
25. The Council said this award was given because Miss X was threatened with homelessness and was overcrowded.
26. The Council said Miss X did not ask for a separate health assessment in her initial application. It acknowledged Miss X provided it with health related information about her children, but said this was not enough information to carry out a health assessment at that time.
27. In mid-February, Miss X queried whether she was eligible for an HHA and provided the Council with further medical information.
28. In March, the Council considered Miss X’s request and decided she was not eligible for an HHA. The Council decided the medical information Miss X provided about herself and her children, was not linked to their current housing circumstances.
29. The Council wrote to Miss X and gave her this update. The letter said Miss X had a right to review this decision.
30. Miss X did not ask the Council to review this decision.
31. In late July, the Council wrote to Miss X telling her it had accepted it owed her a main housing duty. It also told her she was now eligible for a band two award based on this change of her circumstances.
32. In early August, Miss X asked the Council for a review of her banding decision and told the Council she believed band one was a more appropriate award. She explained this related to multiple health needs because she and C had disabilities. She also told the Council, that D was living with poor mental health and was vulnerable.
33. In mid-September, the Council wrote to Miss X with the outcome of her banding review request.
34. The Council told Miss X it was satisfied that an increased award of ‘extreme health and social welfare’ was appropriate, and awarded her band one on the allocation scheme. It also backdated the award to March 2022.
35. The Council says the decision to award Miss X band one was because it had more in-depth information about Miss X at that point. It says it also had additional information relating to Miss X’s homelessness application, which included information gathered through contact Miss X had with her caseworker.
36. The Council says because of the high demand for housing in the areas Miss X wanted, it thought it was unlikely Miss X would be offered properties and would likely have to travel farther afield. Because it was aware of the difficulties this would cause D, it considered the ‘extreme’ award was appropriate, because a move outside this area made them more vulnerable.
37. The Council says it used its discretion to backdate the award to March.

My findings

38. Miss X says the Council disregarded her needs and her family’s needs because it did not award band one from the outset.
39. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision made without fault. This means we cannot find fault with a banding decision just because the complainant disagrees with it. We look at the Council’s decision-making process. We consider whether it took into account all the relevant information and followed its allocations policy.
40. The Council considered the evidence Miss X provided when she requested an HHA in February. When it decided not to give this award, it notified Miss X of her opportunity to ask for a review.
41. Miss X did not ask for a review and I cannot make a judgement about the outcome of that review if she had done.
42. In July, after it accepted it owed Miss X a main duty, the Council reassessed
    Miss X’s banding and increased it to band two in line with its policy.
43. Miss X asked for this decision to be reviewed and the Council increased her award to ‘extreme’ and awarded band one. At the same time, the Council used its discretion to backdate the award to March.
44. I can understand why Miss X thinks the decision to backdate the award demonstrates the Council made the wrong decision when she initially requested an HHA.
45. However, the Council told me it backdated the priority, based on what it knew about Miss X’s case by September. This included evidence about the impact moving would have on the family. The Council gained this knowledge through Miss X’s contact with the caseworker dealing with her homeless application. The Council did not have this information when it first considered Miss X’s application in early 2022.
46. The Council has not failed to consider any relevant information. The Council referred to the relevant parts of its allocations scheme and it took decisions it was able to take. Therefore, there was no fault in how the Council decided Miss X’s banding on the housing register.

Back to top

Final decision

47. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman